dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Electrical Engineering

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 22584051 
Appeal of Nebraska Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: OCT. 06, 2022 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Advanced Degree, Exceptional Ability, National 
Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, an electrical engineer specializing in electric vehicle technology, seeks second 
preference immigrant classification as either an advanced degree professional or an individual of 
exceptional ability in the sciences, arts or business. He also seeks a national interest waiver of the job 
offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) 
section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(2). After a petitioner has established eligibility for EB-2 
classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, grant 
a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign national's proposed 
endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign national is well 
positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the 
United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). 
The Director of the Nebraska Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had 
not established eligibility for the underlying EB-2 immigrant visa classification as a member of the 
professions holding an advanced degree or that a waiver of the classification's job offer requirement 
would be in the national interest. 1 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a 
preponderance of the evidence. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; MatterofChawathe, 25 l&N 
Dec. 369, 375 (AAO 2010). The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) reviews the questions in this 
matter de nova. See Matter of Christo 's Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de nova 
review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
1 The Petitioner did not claim in his filing, in response to a request for evidence, or on appeal that he qualified based on 
exceptional ability. 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States, and whose services in the 
sciences, arts, professions, or business are sought by an employer in the United 
States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Section 101(a)(32) of the Act, 8 USC § 1101(a)(32), provides that "[t]he term 'profession' shall 
include but not be limited to architects, engineers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons, and teachers in 
elementary or secondary schools, colleges, academics, or seminaries." 
The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) contains the following relevant definitions: 
Advanced degree means any United States academic or professional degree or a foreign 
equivalent degree above that of baccalaureate. A United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree followed by at least five years of progressive experience 
in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a master's degree. If a doctoral 
degree is customarily required by the specialty, the alien must have a United States 
doctorate or a foreign equivalent degree. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business means a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Profession means one of the occupations listed in section 10l(a)(32) of the Act, as well 
as any occupation for which a United States baccalaureate degree or its foreign 
equivalent is the minimum requirement for entry in the occupation. 
In addition, the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth the specific evidentiary requirements 
for demonstrating eligibility as an individual of exceptional ability. A petitioner must submit 
2 
documentation that satisfies at least three of the six categories of evidence listed at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(k)(3)(ii). 
Furthermore, while neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," 
we set forth a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision 
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). In announcing this new framework, we vacated 
our prior precedent decision, Matter of New York State Department of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 
215 (Act. Assoc. Comm'r 1998). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established eligibility for 
EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may grant a national interest 
waiver as matter of discretion. See also Poursina v. USCIS, 936 F .3d 868, 2019 WL 4051593 (9th 
Cir. 2019) ( finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver to be discretionary in 
nature). As a matter of discretion, the national interest waiver may be granted if the petitioner 
demonstrates: ( 1) that the foreign national' s proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national 
importance; (2) that the foreign national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and 
(3) that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer 
and thus of a labor certification. See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 888-91, for elaboration on these three 
prongs. 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner states that he is an electrical engineer specializing in electric vehicle technology, with 
multiple patents for electric vehicle! I methods. His proposed endeavor is to 
"leverage [his] track record of successful industry innovation and government-recognized expertise 
regarding the technological roadmap for next-generation electric vehicles in order to bring proven, 
leading-edge! !technology to the United States." In this endeavor, he intends to serve 
as "Director" of a proposed joint venture in building electric vehicle 
The Petitioner asserts that he qualifies for advanced degree professional classification by virtue of a 
foreign education equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and more than five years of post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty, in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). The 
Petitioner does not make any claim to qualify as an individual with exceptional ability. 
As noted above, a petition for an advanced degree professional must include evidence that a petitioner 
possesses a "United States academic or professional degree or a foreign equivalent degree above that 
of baccalaureate [or] A United States baccalaureate degree or a foreign equivalent degree followed by 
at least five years of progressive experience in the specialty shall be considered the equivalent of a 
master's degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2). In addition, a petitioner must meet all of the eligibility 
requirements of the petition at the time of filing. 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(l), (12). 
In order to show that a petitioner holds a qualifying advanced degree, the petition must be accompanied 
by "[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States advanced degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A). Alternatively, a petitioner may present 
"[a]n official academic record showing that the [individual] has a United States baccalaureate degree 
or a foreign equivalent degree, and evidence in the form ofletters from current or former employer(s) 
showing that the [individual] has at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in 
the specialty." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). 
3 
With the initial filing, the Petitioner submitted a certificate of graduation and scholastic record 
demonstrating that he earned a bachelor of engineering degree from I University in South Korea 
in February 2012. He also submitted the following evidence of his employment: 
• An employment certificate and English translation stating that he was employed as 
a Director withl I from March 1, 2019 to the date of 
issuance, June 10, 2019. 
• A career certificate and English translation stating that he was employed as a Vice 
President with I from November 1, 2016 to May 3, 2019 (issued 
June 5, 2019). 
• His curriculum vitae. 
• Certificates of National Health Insurance listing him as an employee of various 
businesses from 1987 to 2019. 
Upon review of the evidence submitted with the initial filing of the petition, the Director issued a 
request for evidence (RFE) to the Petitioner. The Director notified the Petitioner that the record did 
not establish he is a member of the professions with an advanced degree. The Director acknowledged 
that the Petitioner had submitted his bachelor's degree and transcripts from I University and 
letters of employment. However, the Director noted that the letters of employment do not state the 
duties the Petitioner performed, and, therefore, he could not establish the five years of required post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty. In addition, the RFE informed the Petitioner that the 
evidence provided was insufficient to establish the Petitioner's eligibility under each of the three 
Dhanasar prongs. 
In his response to the RFE, the Petitioner asserted that he possessed more than five years of progressive 
post-baccalaureate experience and a ain submitted his curriculum vitae. He also submitted a letter of 
recommendation fro states that he worked with the Petitioner from July 2000 
to June 2003, at and from July 2016 to March 2019 atl I He also 
attests to the Petitioner's traits and areas of expertise. 
The Director denied the petition, providing analysis of the Petitioner's ineligibility for both the 
underlying classification based on advanced degree criteria and under the Dhanasar framework related 
to seeking a National Interest Waiver. The Director concluded that the record did not include "letters 
from employers with a specific description of the duties [the Petitioner] performed, demonstrating five 
years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty, and including the name, address, 
and title of the writer." The Director also noted that the Petitioner did not submit an academic 
evaluation stating the U.S. equivalence of his education. The Director concluded that there was 
insufficient evidence to establish that the Petitioner was a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. He also concluded that, although the Petitioner had established that the proposed 
endeavor has substantial merit, he did not establish its national importance, that he was well-positioned 
to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be beneficial to the United States to 
waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
On appeal, the Petitioner again asserts that he qualifies for advanced degree professional classification 
based on his foreign education equivalent to a U.S. baccalaureate degree and what he claims as more 
4 
than five years of post-baccalaureate experience in the specialty. He submits an academic equivalency 
evaluation stating that his bachelor of engineering degree from South Korea is equivalent to a four­
year bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering from an accredited U.S. college or university. 
He also resubmits the previously submitted employment and career certificates, and the certificates of 
national health insurance. He did not submit new employment letters or any additional evidence to 
document his five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience or address the Director's 
concerns. 
The Petitioner's originally submitted curriculum vitae 1s self-serving and does not provide 
independent, objective evidence of his prior work experience. See Matter of Ho, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 
591 (BIA 1988). Going on record without supporting documentary evidence is not sufficient for 
purposes of meeting the burden of proof in these proceedings. Matter of Soffici, 22 I&N Dec. 158, 
165 (Comm'r 1998) ( citing Matter of Treasure Craft of California, 14 I&N Dec. 190 (Reg'l Comm'r 
1972)). 
The certificates of national health insurance do not list the Petitioner's job title or duties or describe 
his employment experience in any way. While the employment and career certificates provide the 
Petitioner's job titles as "Director" and "Vice President" they do not provide any description of his 
job duties in these roles. Without these details of the Petitioner's experience, we are unable to 
determine whether this experience is progressive in nature or in the specialty. Further, the certificates 
document less than five years of total experience, from November 2016 to June 2019, the date the 
certificates were issued. 2 
We also note that the recommendation letter from I I is insufficient to document the 
Petitioner's five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience. The letter does not describe the 
Petitioner's duties in an s ecific position. Further, the letter references employment from July 2016 
to March 2019 at which is less than five years. The other employment referenced, with 
from July 2000 to June 2003, is not post-baccalaureate, as it was prior to 
the Petitioner's completion of a bachelor's degree in 2012. Therefore, we agree with the Director that 
the Petitioner has not established his eligibility for classification as a member of the professions with 
an advanced degree, because he has not established that he has five years of progressive post­
baccalaureate experience in the specialty. 
As explained in the legal framework above, to establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a 
petitioner must first demonstrate qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an 
advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. 
Because the Petitioner has not established this threshold issue, the remainder of the Petitioner's 
arguments need not be addressed. 3 It is unnecessary to analyze any remaining independent grounds 
2 We note that the Petitioner's claimed employment withl I overlaps with his claimed employment with 
I I from March to May 2019. In any further filings the Petitioner must explain this overlapping employment and 
how he was able to work full-time as Director ofl I and Vice President of for two months. 
3 Even ifwe had addressed the remaining issues and arguments, we still would have dismissed this appeal. As noted above, 
the Director concluded that, although the proposed endeavor has substantial merit, the Petitioner did not establish its 
national importance, that he was well-positioned to advance the proposed endeavor, or that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. On appeal, the 
5 
when another is dispositive of the appeal. Therefore, we decline to reach whether he meets the 
remainder of the first prong on national importance, or the second and third prongs under the Dhanasar 
framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (finding it unnecessary to analyze 
additional grounds when another independent issue is dis positive of the appeal); see also Matter of L­
A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where an 
applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
III. CONCLUSION 
As the Petitioner has not established that he qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification, he has 
not established that he is eligible for or otherwise merits a national interest waiver. The appeal will 
be dismissed for the above stated reasons. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
Petitioner references the same supporting evidence submitted with the original petition and provides news and journal 
articles discussing electric vehicles. The Director fully addressed the already submitted evidence and the articles do not 
address the specific proposed endeavor. The Petitioner's evidence and arguments do not establish that he meets all of the 
three Dhanasar prongs. 
6